This one has the funky bokeh I think many are discussing. I've seen this bokeh before, on an EOS 100-400ii. It happened on that lens at certain distances between subject and background.
Forgot to say also with the 1.4 for 700mm.
It wouldn't be that hard at all to smooth the background in poset eh? But I don't find it offensive, I know many do.
Thanks much appreciated , hard decisions If I had the money for a 500mm F4E FL I'd buy that for sure. I noticed photographing things like Peregrine Falcons in flight at longer distances the IQ with the 200-500 at 500mm doesn't hold up as well as I'd like . For medium to close its pretty decent but I'm noticing things especially with the D850. Reading that either 500mm f4G or PF would be a worthwhile upgrade over the 200-500 helps though
ilkka_nissila wrote:
If you don't mind the 3.9kg weight of the lens and mostly would use it with a tripod and gimbal or fluid head, I can't imagine being disappointed with the image quality from the 500mm f/4G VR.
For long distance photography with a 500mm lens, you can expect a lot of atmospheric disturbances in the images at the pixel level. It isn't really a lens problem as such. Some lenses may be more optimized for long distances than others, but in any case the atmospherics magnified by a 500mm lens are usually a problem with long-distance photography. I suppose it's possible to minimize the effect by avoiding shooting over water and areas where (or times when) heat causes significant evaporation.
I read a comment a while ago that suggested that the use of a larger aperture helps alleviate atmospheric degradation because the photon trajectories that hit the different parts of the front element are more different from each other than when using a smaller aperture lens (where the front element is smaller). The atmospheric fluctuations would then be averaged over these paths and so the effect would potentially be reduced when using the larger aperture lens (assuming here that both are used wide open, but adjusting the diaphragm would have a similar effect on the results). I don't know how realistic this is and whether the difference would be noticeable, but it's an interesting idea.
Anyway, either the 500/4G VR or the 500/5.6E PF would result in a significant improvement in image sharpness over the 200-500/5.6E VR at 500mm, but the f/4 may produce better results in backlit situations, gives a stronger (and better quality) separation of the subject from an out-of-focus surround, and gives 1 stop faster shutter speeds or lower ISO compared to the 500/5.6E PF.
The autofocus of the 500 PF is significantly faster than that of the 200-500. How much difference there is between 500 PF and 500/4G VR, I wouldn't be able to tell without a careful side by side comparison.
What I do know is that the 500 PF is a lot of fun to work with because of its small size, low weight, and excellent sharpness in the short to mid distance range. For long distance, I believe someone posted a comparison with the f/4E VR a few months ago and the latter came out noticeably sharper. But it is substantially more expensive than either the f/4G VR or the 500/5.6E PF....Show more →
Jemini wrote:
I've shot with 500/4G for about 5 years. I haven't seen any comparison between PF and G yet. Honestly I won't be surprised if PF come out sharper. I DO think so. G never worked great for me with TC-14E II or III. You can't beat the bokeh of f/4. Otherwise PF is going to be better than G.
Thanks , I'll have a look if anybody has had chance to directly compare them. I can put up with the weight if it proves to be better. F4 is nice to have especially in the UK but I'm used to using the 200-500 down at 1/160-250 at 500mm f5.6 which is ok for slow to static objects
Anyone else think the hood on this lens is not up to par?
I thought at first it was going to be an improvement over 200-500 and 300PF hoods as it had a locking mechanism but it seems overly fiddly to lineup and seat properly to rotate it into lock position. The 200-500 hood was certainly worse as it had a habit of just falling off when bumped hard enough. The 300PF hood IMO is the nicest of the four Nikon lenses I've owned...I can twist that thing on and off without even thinking about it and it locks into place nicely even though it doesn't have the lock button that the 500PF does. Of course my 500FL CF hood may be considered nice but I really have never liked the super telephoto screw on hoods from Canon or Nikon...takes too long to screw on and off and seating it isn't foolproof either.
Anyways, maybe I'm alone in this hood assessment and maybe there is some variety in how these hoods fit due to manufacturing tolerances as mine seems sort of tight to rotate which adds to the fiddly nature.
arbitrage wrote:
Anyone else think the hood on this lens is not up to par?
I thought at first it was going to be an improvement over 200-500 and 300PF hoods as it had a locking mechanism but it seems overly fiddly to lineup and seat properly to rotate it into lock position. The 200-500 hood was certainly worse as it had a habit of just falling off when bumped hard enough. The 300PF hood IMO is the nicest of the four Nikon lenses I've owned...I can twist that thing on and off without even thinking about it and it locks into place nicely even though it doesn't have the lock button that the 500PF does. Of course my 500FL CF hood may be considered nice but I really have never liked the super telephoto screw on hoods from Canon or Nikon...takes too long to screw on and off and seating it isn't foolproof either.
Anyways, maybe I'm alone in this hood assessment and maybe there is some variety in how these hoods fit due to manufacturing tolerances as mine seems sort of tight to rotate which adds to the fiddly nature. ...Show more →
I actually like the operation of the 500 PF type of hood with the locking button, although I think it is a tad more difficult to line up and put on then others with a similar hood operation. It doesn't really bother me, though and mine is definitely not overly tight and fits well. In fact, I've noticed the same thing with the other hoods with a locking button, 24-70 f2.8 VR, 70-200 f2.8E VR, except the 80-400 which seems easier. The 200-500 was not a good set up at all and would've gladly paid a few $ more to have a more sturdy lens hood for the 200-500. Like you, the super tele lens hoods like the 400 f2.8 etc are very fiddly, but I guess they have to be to be a solid fit especially as they are often rested on their hood standing up and thus need to be sturdy.
arbitrage wrote:
Anyone else think the hood on this lens is not up to par?
I thought at first it was going to be an improvement over 200-500 and 300PF hoods as it had a locking mechanism but it seems overly fiddly to lineup and seat properly to rotate it into lock position. The 200-500 hood was certainly worse as it had a habit of just falling off when bumped hard enough. The 300PF hood IMO is the nicest of the four Nikon lenses I've owned...I can twist that thing on and off without even thinking about it and it locks into place nicely even though it doesn't have the lock button that the 500PF does. Of course my 500FL CF hood may be considered nice but I really have never liked the super telephoto screw on hoods from Canon or Nikon...takes too long to screw on and off and seating it isn't foolproof either.
Anyways, maybe I'm alone in this hood assessment and maybe there is some variety in how these hoods fit due to manufacturing tolerances as mine seems sort of tight to rotate which adds to the fiddly nature. ...Show more →
I think that the 500PF hood is in line with Nikon's design for a lens of that size... it has been the type of mechanism that Nikon has implemented in the 70-700 f/2.8FLE and 80-400G. With that said, it would have been nice if Nikon created a carbon fiber hood that was a bit more robust.
I posted this way long ago. I've not used the OEM hood of the 500PF. I went with the collapsible rubber hood that had filter grooves for a UV filter. When at a venue I don't use lens cap either...so even if the camera+lens is in the ApeCase I can whip it out, and with quick tug on the rubber hood (though most times the act of pulling it out extends the hood) and I'm ready to shoot.
Today my first Buffle woot!
And if I though Harriers are super skittish stay too far, these little ducks are worse. These ducks surely are why people camo out their kayaks in an effort to get closer. Leaned a lot about them today. Maybe I'll get to see them again.
Another shot of the two cranes post way up above, just a different angle, and my first ever KF in flight. The Kingfisher was only possible because of the cropability of the D500, it was way off in the distance even using the 1.4TC
If I had the money for a 500mm F4E FL I'd buy that for sure. I noticed photographing things like Peregrine Falcons in flight at longer distances the IQ with the 200-500 at 500mm doesn't hold up as well as I'd like . For medium to close its pretty decent but I'm noticing things especially with the D850. Reading that either 500mm f4G or PF would be a worthwhile upgrade over the 200-500 helps though 
But here there are no Taipan, Brown, or Tiger 
